You are currently viewing the abstract.
View Full TextLog in to view the full text
AAAS login provides access to Science for AAAS members, and access to other journals in the Science family to users who have purchased individual subscriptions.
Register for free to read this article
As a service to the community, this article is available for free. Existing users log in.
More options
Download and print this article for your personal scholarly, research, and educational use.
Buy a single issue of Science for just $15 USD.
Abstract
Recent studies have identified troubling method and practice lapses in neuropsychiatric drug developments. These problems have resulted in errors that are of sufficient magnitude to invalidate clinical trial data and interpretations. We identify two potential sources for these difficulties: investigators selectively choosing scientific practices for demonstrations of efficacy in human-testing phases of drug development and investigators failing to anticipate the needs of practitioners who must optimize treatment for the individual patient. When clinical investigators neglect to use clinical trials as opportunities to test hypotheses of disease mechanisms in humans, the neuropsychiatric knowledge base loses both credibility and scope. When clinical investigators do not anticipate the need to translate discoveries into applications, the practitioner cannot provide optimal care for the patient. We conclude from this evidence that clinical trials, and other aspects of neuropsychiatric drug development, must adopt more practices from basic science and show greater responsiveness to conditions of clinical practice. We feel that these changes are necessary to overcome current threats to the validity and utility of studies of neurological and psychiatric drugs.
Footnotes
-
Citation: R. E. Becker, N. H. Greig, Lost in Translation: Neuropsychiatric Drug Development. Sci. Transl. Med. 2, 61rv6 (2010).
- Copyright © 2010, American Association for the Advancement of Science
